Tiger Only One of FedEx Top 6 in AT&T?
Bradley K. Sherman
What's up with that?
--bks The nicest guy in rec.sport.golf
Stapler
news:h2lssd$a1u$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
> What's up with that?
>
> --bks The nicest guy in rec.sport.golf
>
It's Tiger's Tourney.
W^3
b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> What's up with that?
>
> --bks The nicest guy in rec.sport.golf
The whole FedEx thing is the dumbest, most annoying thing I've seen on
the PGA Tour in my life.
Poll: The FedEx Cup will disappear in
1. 2010
2. 2011
3. 2012
4. Later
5. Never
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>The whole FedEx thing is the dumbest, most annoying thing I've seen on
>the PGA Tour in my life.
It's way up there.
>Poll: The FedEx Cup will disappear in
>
>1. 2010
>2. 2011
>3. 2012
>4. Later
>5. Never
Probably 4. If we're lucky, 3.
Looking at Fed-Ex points at the start of the season in leaderboards is
silly. Especially since the regular season counts so little. Winners
so far have won 2 post-season tournaments, and either not shown up, or
played poorly a third tournament.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Annika1980
>
> Looking at Fed-Ex points at the start of the season in leaderboards is
> silly. Especially since the regular season counts so little. Winners
> so far have won 2 post-season tournaments, and either not shown up, or
> played poorly a third tournament.
>
Yeah, it's kinda like watching a NASCAR race and asking, "Who's
leading?" after 10 laps.
I suppose we'll have to put up with the FEDEX thing until they pull
their sponsorship.
Bradley K. Sherman
But accumulated FedEx points must correlate with player strength! I
still find it peculiar that only one out of the top six showed
up at the AT&T. I am not a fan of FedEx, I am a fan of statistical
peculiarities. Are you guys saying it's just a fluke?
The Nicest Guy in Rec.sport.golf,
--bks
Annika1980
>
> But accumulated FedEx points must correlate with player strength! I
> still find it peculiar that only one out of the top six showed
> up at the AT&T. I am not a fan of FedEx, I am a fan of statistical
> peculiarities. Are you guys saying it's just a fluke?
I think the other guys were just shit-scared.
Phil wasn't gonna show because of the "Hosted by Tiger Woods" thing.
Kenny Perry was preparing for the biggest Major of the year ... the
John Deere Classic.
isaiasmg
> What's up with that?
>
> --bks The nicest guy in rec.sport.golf
Yeah, I'm surprised. I mean, I know players all cherry pick the
tournaments they play based on past success, but I would think they
would want to at least have a look at Congressional before the 2011 US
Open (but then again, the course will probably change a lot, aka
Torrey Pines for the '08 Open). But that's why I have a lot of
respect for Vijay Singh and Jim Furyk, who are out there almost every
week (or at least, it sure seems that way) working hard, I hope they
get at least one win this year.
W^3
b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> In article <034092ac-8c53-4abd...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 5, 8:26�pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Looking at Fed-Ex points at the start of the season in leaderboards is
> >> silly. � Especially since the regular season counts so little. Winners
> >> so far have won 2 post-season tournaments, and either not shown up, or
> >> played poorly a third tournament.
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, it's kinda like watching a NASCAR race and asking, "Who's
> >leading?" after 10 laps.
> >I suppose we'll have to put up with the FEDEX thing until they pull
> >their sponsorship.
> >
>
> But accumulated FedEx points must correlate with player strength!
So you think Vijay Singh was player of the year in 2008?
> I
> still find it peculiar that only one out of the top six showed
> up at the AT&T. I am not a fan of FedEx, I am a fan of statistical
> peculiarities. Are you guys saying it's just a fluke?
Phil is taking a large time out because of his wife's cancer
treatment. I think he'll be a no show at the British Open for the same
reason. As for Perry, Johnson, Stricker, Ogilvy - I can't stay awake
long enough to think about it.
Darrell Jefress
"W^3" <aderam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aderamey.addw-B67...@news.individual.net...
> In article <h2rlfg$j93$7...@reader1.panix.com>,
> b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
>
>> But accumulated FedEx points must correlate with player strength!
>
> So you think Vijay Singh was player of the year in 2008?
No, but that's not what the FedEx Cup claims to be. The "Playoffs" are a
separate event, and Singh won that event.
Just like Immelman's win in the Masters didn't make him the US Open
Champion, Singh's performance in the FedEx Cup events earned him the win -
but it didn't make him a major winner in '08.
DJJ
W^3
<WBs4m.423769$4m1.2...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Darrell Jefress" <eve...@tokyo.com> wrote:
> "W^3" <aderam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:aderamey.addw-B67...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <h2rlfg$j93$7...@reader1.panix.com>,
> > b...@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) wrote:
> >
>
> >> But accumulated FedEx points must correlate with player strength!
> >
> > So you think Vijay Singh was player of the year in 2008?
>
> No, but that's not what the FedEx Cup claims to be. The "Playoffs" are a
> separate event, and Singh won that event.
Brad's assertion was: accumulated FedEx points must correlate with
player strength. That's what I was addressing.
Darrell Jefress
"W^3" <aderam...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:aderamey.addw-243...@news.individual.net...
> Brad's assertion was: accumulated FedEx points must correlate with
> player strength. That's what I was addressing.
OK, I can even buy *that* correlation, as long as we don't try to make *too
much* out of it. But if he was referring to 2009, then what he would be
saying is that the current FedEx Cup standings reflect player strength for
2009. (2008 would be different, because the event, including the playoffs,
is finished and we already have declared a winner.)
The correlation can still exist without being perfect - you would, I trust,
agree that the better performing players will *tend to* be higher in the
standings than the weaker players, even if the precise order may see a few
anomalies.
You might ask "But Kenny Perry and Zach Johnson? What have they done in the
majors so far?" That's a good question. And again, we'd have to look at
what the FedEx Cup is trying to do. It's a PGA Tour creation, and its
intent is to weigh performance over the entire tour season. Hence, the
majors get a little bit of a boost, but for the most part, all of the events
are treated close to equally. One could be way up in the Cup standings
without doing squat in the majors, though it's unlikely that would happen.
So the standings will reflect good play and high finishes in *all* the tour
events. Obviously, the tour is trying to get players to compete in some of
the lesser events, where Cup points will represent low-hanging fruit.
So the standings won't tell us who the top five players, in order, are, but
it is probably safe to say that if you're in the top five, you've probably
had a season that would be one of the ten best. That's not perfect, but at
least it tells us something.
DJJ